<««^ c :c:-«r<r. 









cxr^e: 












c c: __ 









•«icd?' ^ 



t «-<ir * 









>:- C-C" 

3; c C 
""^ cc 

i;;" cx 
J? c c 
3 c c 
c <c 
~; c:<c; 
^R CjC 



IlIBRARY OF CONGRESS. # I 



^/y^. LT3...G.9.5. I 



die: ccc 



; UNITED STATES OP AMERICA, f 






t^ f ice «£ 

=^ ' <^c*: c«EL 






dC <- 



C__f 


cc; 


• <r" 


<L 


c 


^zi: 


-vC^c.,, 


«: 

g 


<di 


< 

c 


C 


^i 


C- 


<tc^ 


^^_ 


c < 


>! ^CT"'- 


^^^' 


i^ 


<<ZI 


'C^ C 


- ■' ^n: ■'^ 


«s^ 


«I? 


cCH '" 


C c 


^dT. -' 


<:ct 


«r 


<-<z:.' 


c c 


^^^'~ ' - 


<ac«;. 


cdT 


"d;. 


T C 


^r^'"~"' 


-ace: 


cc: 


':^ 


c C 


Sc~"' ■' 


d^v 


Od^ 


cd 


< c 


*!?~ 


■tCi • 


cd 


-fd 


<: C 


^Kc^^^H 




cd^ 


< d_\ 


C C 


-^^ 


' cc 


cdT'' 


cd:. 


C c 


^^cr 


^ '«£• 


cd 


^- <S 


C r 


^d'^ 


^ ^c 


cd 


:: eg 


^C c 


^d"" ' 


_<1 


<d 


r f.<L 


I 1. . 


<d 


^_ << 


cd 

cd_' 


c cd 


C ( 


<r^ 


C! ' ' 


c<r 


c < 


; f < 


cdT^ 


^ 




c 
-•c << 


c: f,' 


# 


Wr^ re. 


<^" 


<-<■ ■ < «r ,c c 


cd 


^Z." 


'«z: 


< <L ■ <: 


<C^' 


Cd 


<CZ_' 


"S- 


'-< < 


's: < < 


Cd^ 


^tl ,:'■ 


'^ 


* < 


<■ «s_ > 


cc; ^ 


^Z__5' 


<<i 


< c 


<^«; 


Cd 


' ^l.^''- 


d 


c«' 


cd> 


Cd i 


^CL •'" 


'^ 


< <i 


c<r 


Cd <r 


^Tj 


^<i. 


< c. 


<« 


-<d; «: 


^7^ 


,'^ 


< '■ ■• ' 




Cd <t 
<d <(C 


<:::'■ 


'dii 


t. ■' 


<«1 


Cd ■*: 


<. ■; 


"^ 


< <-■ 


<:<:< 


«; « 


. <: 


- ^<:l 


<r •. ■■ 


<<L 


c*?: « 


d^ 


'dl_. 


< -.v 


<c 


<d «; 


d 


^ 




cc 


«r; « 
<d « 


<: 


<■_ 


<i 


^^ 


«, ■ • 


ct 


■'•'<d -<« 



d -. 

C_<' 

d< 

dc «.., 
c< c 

d'' C 












-^^ 















rccr 



^ ^ 



-«^C_C^.: 









'c<-' ^- 



REPLY 



TO THE 



SEQUEL OF HON, HORACE MANN, 



BEING A SUPPLEMENT TO THE 



Bible, tl)e Hob, ani) Keligion, m (Eommon 0cl)ool0. 



BY MATTHEW HALE SMITH. 






M> BOSTON; 

J. M. WHITTEMORE, 114 WASHINGTON ST 

1847. 



u^^">:, 



MR. SMITH IN REPLY TO THE HON. HORACE MANN. 



I have before me a pamphlet of 56 pages, entitled, " Sequel to 
the so-called correspondence between the Rev. M. H. Smith and 
Horace Mann, surreptitiously published by Mr. Smith; containing 
a letter from Mr. Mann, suppressed by Mr. Smith, with the reply 
therein promised." The pamphlet opens with a statement false in 
all its parts. It asserts that " Mr. Smith suppressed a letter from 
Mr. Mann." This false statement is repeated nine times in the 
book. This is no trivial error on the part of the " Secretary of the 
Board of Education." It was first given to the public in the Boston 
Post of Jan, 13, — unquestionably from the same source. It was 
promptly, emphatically, and unequivocally denied by myself, in the 
Boston Post of Jan. 14. The following is the letter : 

TO THE EDITOR OF THE BOSTON POST : 

Sir : — There is no truth in the statement of your correspondent, that 1 
have suppressed a letter from the Hon. Mr. Mann. I have seen no such 
letter. According to the statement of your authority, the letter referred 
to contained only an assurance that an answer was coming. With that 
answer, when it comes, I may have something to do, and I may not. 

My work in the pamphlet referred to, was a distinct one. Statements 
made in my sermon were called in question. " Proof or withdrawal " was 
demanded. I have given such proof as I considered essential to my de- 
fence. That done, my work was done. If 1 have not sustained my posi- 



4 MR, SMITH IN REPLY TO 

tiona, the censure will fall where it belongs. I will trust to your well- 
known courtesy to allow me to say to your readers that, with a defence of 
my positions, I felt my work to be done. M. Hale Smith. 

January 13, 1847. 

To this denial, Mr. Mann makes no allusion. But in the face of 
it, repeats and prints in nine places, the false and libellous state- 
ment. 

Mr. Mann may have written a letter such as he refers to, and he 
may not. He may have sent a letter, and he may not. The Hon. 
Secretary is not above suspicion. He has been publicly accused 
of the very thing with which he accuses me. His own words are 
" Soon after my appointment as Secretary of the Board of Educa- 
tion, ONE OF THE RELIGIOUS PAPERS OF BoSTON, WITHOUT ANY 
SHADOW OF TRUTH OR PROBABILITY, CHARGED ME WITH SUPPRESSING 
A PUBLIC DOCUMENT, WHICH HAD NEVER COME INTO MY HANDS, AND 

WHICH I HAD NEVER SEEN." (Reply to Boston Masters, p. 169.) A 
man capable of insinuating what he insinuates on page 36, and then 
suggesting such reasons for his insinuation, would hardly shrink from 
the commitment of the act. And when he says, " There is no telling 
beforehand what follies even an intelligent man, with a wicked pur- 
pose in his heart will commit," he had probably just arisen from 
sounding the depths of his own heart. 

I regard this aspersion as a great official outrage. A saleried of- 
ficer of this Commonwealth — who has been in the pay of the State 
for ten years — to support whom both my people and myself are 
taxed — he, to defend his official course, sends out, through the length 
and the breadth of the land, under the sanction of his own high of- 
fice, a falsehood with circumstance — without the slightest allusion 
to the fact that it had been emphatically denied, — without an at- 
tempt to make good the charge. I place this brand upon the fore- 
head of the " Secretary," and he may wear it, or, if he can, take it 
off. 



tHB HON. HORACE MANN. 



MR. MANN's misstatements. 



There are misstatements running through the " Sequel,"" which 
indicate, on the part of the Hon. Secretary, a recklessness, or an 
indifference to truth, which must shake the confidence of every 
prudent man in his statements. These misstatements are so nu- 
merous that I shall not attempt to cite them all. I will select a few 
as specimens : 

Mistake 1. — On pages 3 and 18, Mr. Mann asserts that I 
preached my sermon in Faneuil Hall. I never publicly spake in 
Faneuil Hall in my life, on any occasion. 

Mistake 2. — He accuses me of bringing against the Board of 
Education the grave charges which he enumerates on page 3. The 
gravest I ever brought against that Board, was the countenance it 
has given to the " crude and destructive opinions " of its Secretary. 

Mistake 3. — On page 9, Mr. Mann says that I accused him first 
and then made inquiries. Just the reverse of the truth. 

Mistake 4. — On page 5, Mr. Mann attempts to give an account of 
the circumstances which originated my sermon. He makes it seem 
to follow the Union Sabbath School Teachers' Meetings held in Bos- 
ton. He asserts that I took advantage of such meetings to draw a 
crowd. Now the truth is that the sermon was preached before those 
union meetings were held. The first union meeting was held Oct 
11 : my sermon was preached Oct. 4. 

Mistake 5. — The Hon. Secretary, on page 4th, calls " the Olive 
Branch the organ of the Methodists," a paper which originated in the 
purpose to destroy that denomination ; a purpose it has never aban- 
doned ! Why did not the Secretary quote, from the Trumpet, its ap- 
proval of his course, and call that the organ of the Orthodox? or 
from the Investigator, and announce that as the organ of Chris- 
tians f 

Mistake 6— I am accused of visiting the Normal School at West 
Newton, "incog," (p. 33,) that is, " in concealment," "in disguise," 
for such is the meaning of the word. If he had said I went in 
1* 



6 MR. SMITH IN REPLY TO 

on my head, he would not have told a greater untruth. I went fa 
West Newton, a few weeks ago, on business. When that was com- 
pleted, I thought I would just enter the far-famed State school. I 
supposed I had a right to do so, if I behaved civilly. I saw no rules 
requiring,, as a condition of admittance, that a person must announce 
his name, and state the business that called him to the town. I wore 
the dress I wear every day. I went up openly, not having the fear 
of either the Secretary or the Principal before my eyes. I knocked 
at the door of the school-room and asked permission to enter. I 
sat about fifteen minutes and left the school with the impression 
that though the Principal might have a head like a lexicon, he 
would never be canonized for his civility. 

But " to spy out the land " I went, if Mr. Mann is to be believed. 
Then was I singularly unfortunate in the time I selected. I should 
have gone " incog," to a recent exhibition of that pattern State 
School — I should have looked upon some of those ladies, candidates 
for emolument and fame, as pupils of the Normal School, taking 
lessons in propriety and delicacy, by wearing the garb of youag 
men ; I should have beheld the Lady Assistant of that school, deep- 
ening those impressions of delicacy, by appearing before the school 
with arms, feet, dsc, apparently bare, though daubed with paint. I 
say apparently, for the covering worn, if any, looked so like the 
skin, that the deception was perfect to the eye. I should then, as 
did the men of old, have spied out the " nakedness of the land." 

Mistake 7 — I am accused in pp. 7-9, of asserting that " minor- 
ities have no rights." Not a shade of truth in the insinuation. 

Mistake 8. — On pp. 3-4 Mr. Mann insinuates that I gave Mr. 
Moore's testimony in such a way, as to make Mr. Moore say what he 
did not mean to say. Mr. Mann says, " As you told it." The truth 
is, I did not tell it at all. Mr. Moore gave me a written statement 
that I copied. It was given for the purpose for which I used it. I 
have it still in Mr. Moore's hand-writing. Not being mindful of Mr. 
Mann's threat. Rev. Mr. Moore, in the Boston Reporter, of March 
4, published since Mr. Mann has issued his sequel, gives the Hon. 
Secretary to understand that he is ready to meet him and his friendr 



THE HON, HOKACE MANN. 7 

Mistake 9. — On page 48, Mr. Mann says, " 1 have now consider- 
ed all the leading proofs contained in your reply." Yet one of 
the most important he has not alluded to at all. It may be found on 
p. 42, and thus reads : 

" In the conversation with the editor of the Puritan, you informed 
him that he did not understand your views upon school discipline. 
Mr. Woodbridge made you this fair offer — he said if you would write, 
in so many words, that you were in favor of the rod in schools, un- 
der certain circumstances, and sign it, he would publish it in the Pu- 
ritan, and all misapprehension would cease. You declined to do it, 
nor would you allow him to say it for you." 

Was the Secretary unwilling that that offer of his declinature, 
should be seen by those who would not read my pamphlet ? 

Mistake 10. — The Secretary, in the Sequel, accuses me of as- 
sailing the Washingtonians. One of the originators of the Wash- 
ingtonian movement was in my pulpit when I preached the sermon 
referred to, and at its close made remarks in confirmation of what 
I had said. Paley says, and the Hon. Secretary endorses the state- 
ment on p. 48, " I have seldom known any one who deserrted truth 
in trifles, that could be trusted in matters of importance." I com- 
mend this array of " desertions " and the authority of Paley, to the 
serious consideration of the "Secretary of the Board of Education." 
If such be his mistakes on matters of fact, what are his opinions 
worth ? 

BIR. MANn's inquiries. 

On p. 6, Mr. Mann asks, with some solicitude, the following que- 
ries : " Who is the Reverend Matthew Hale Smith ? Who is he, 
whose perspicacious eye sees what the other watchmen of the city 
have failed to discover.^ Where, for ten years, have been the 
Sharps, the Jenkses, the Blagdens, the Winslows, the Beechers, and 
others? In the language of the prophet, are they " blind watch- 
men ? " Are they " all dumb dogs that cannot bark ; sleeping, 
lying down, loving to slumber .'' " 



8 MR. SMITH IN REPLY TO 

1. The first question will probably answer itself. If the arm of 
the incendiary is arrested, it matters little, I presume, who does it. 
Whether it be a young man of 36, or an old man of 60 — whether 
it be a stranger just landed from London, or a resident of your city, 
of 40 years standing — the great question would be, did he prevent 
the man from setting the city on fire .'' 

2. The object of the questions found on page 6 was, to give 
the impression that no one dreamed of danger but myself — all the 
city beside were asleep, and the watchmen asleep with the city. 
While, on page 5, the Secretary pretends to recite the circum- 
stances which called forth the sermon. Great danger was appre- 
hended — a large meeting had been held in Faneuil Hall, in 
relation to the morals of Boston — a " general alarm had been 
sounded " — " developments were made," that called out a union 
of all the Sabbath Schools in the city. Of this excited state of 
things I took advantage — coUected a crowd by the subject I gave 
out. Yet, on page 6, as close upon this description as he could 
place it, Mr. Mann denounces me as a person " whose perspicacious 
eye sees what the other watchmen of the city have failed to dis- 
cern." Notvi'ithstanding, the veracious Secretary says, in page 5, 
that the " general alarm had been previously sounded " — " the 
young were thought to be in particular jeopardy " — " develop- 
ments had been made in regard to the morals of Boston " — and 
SEVERAL CLERGYMEN OF THE CITY had already spoken at a public 
meeting in Faneuil Hall, on the awful state of things in this city ; 
and all this before I preached my sermon ! ! It is not every con- 
troversialist that will thus rear his own gallows, to borrow the Hon. 
Secretary's own chosen emblem. 

3. But " where are the Jenkses, &c. ? " They are " of age — 
ask them." I can tell him where one of the predecessors of one of 
them was, just twenty years ago. A person, named W. B. Fowle, 
published a hook, professing to be a re-print of an English work, 
called " Scripture lessons, being a new selection from the Old and 
New Testament, for the use of schools." He presented this book 
to the Committee of the Primary Schools, as a suhstilule for the 



THE HON. HORACE MANN. if 

New Testament. The book was rejected. An article appeared in 
the Boston Courier, abusing the Boston Recorder, and asserting 
that the book was rejected through " the bigotry of one clerical 
member.'''' To this assault, tlie late Rev. Dr. Wisner replies, in a 
communication, which may be found in the Boston Courier of 
M-xrch 26, 1827. Dr. Wisner asserts that four reasons prompted 
him to oppose the introduction of Mr. Fowle's book, notwithstanding 
he had published a large edition. 1. Poor persons, who owned the 
Testaments, would be put to a needless expense. 2. Parts of the 
Apocrapha were inserted with the canonical Scriptures, without any 
thing to distinguish them from the Holy Word. 3. No one could 
object to the New Testament. 4. It was not what it professed to 
be. It was not an honest re-print of the English work. Nine pages 
were omitted, which contain the Scriptures relied upon to defend the 
Divinity of Christ and the Atonement ; five pages of those Scrip- 
tures which teach the Divinity of the Holy Ghost ; a section of 
twenty-one verses on the depravity of man and justification, besides 
other omissions and the addition from the Apocrapha. The book 
was rejected ; all but one voted against it. So early was the effort 
made to get the Testament out of school. Twenty years ago, tha 
eagle eye of Dr. Wisner detected the effort ; and his strong arm laid 
the device bare. It is a strange coincidence, that after a lapse of 
twenty years, we find this same gentleman busy with our schools. 
Hand in hand with the honorable Secretary in his institutes, and 
writing books for our schools, full of his peculiar notions ; flying to 
the rescue of the Secretary, by lampooning and blackening all 
who refuse to burn incense to his idol, or worship a man ; still bent 
on his purpose, sending out now a book for schools, called the 
" Teachers' Institute," in which he calls Solomon an " immoral 
prince " ; now the publisher of the " Common School Journal " ; 
and now, as then, claiming the character of the champion and friend 
of common schools. The effort then made and crushed, many be- 
lieve has never been abandoned. 

4. But " where are the Beechers } " Had the honorable Sec- 
retary been in Faneuil Hall on the evening of October 1, three 



10 MR. SMITH IN REPLY TO 

days before my sermon was preached, and heard Dr. Beecher speak 
on the morals of Boston, he would not have asked that question. 
Or had he been present at a meeting held in this city, on the 25th 
of February, Dr. Beecher would hav*e answered the Secretary in 
terms and tones that undoubtedly would have been sufficient. I 
make a brief extract, as reported in the Boston Post. 

" Dr. Beecher thought that motives to deeper interest in this 
anniversary might be drawn from the fact that a peculiarly dan- 
gerous form of transcendental infidelity, which had its origin in 
Germany, was diffusing itself over the land — that although its 
progress was slow and silent, yet it should be remembered that all 
great changes came slowly and noiselessly — they stole upon us 
while we were unprepared to meet them. 

" Another reason was the apathy of the public mind on the sub- 
jects of religious faith. When he saw the assaults made upon the 
Word of God, and heard it said that the Old Testament was the 
heaviest weight on the neck of Christianity, and saw the extent to 
which this infidelity and irreverence was pervading the public 
heart, he trembled. If the blood which flows through the body is 
poisoned, will it not produce universal disease and death ? " 

5, But " where are the Sharpes .'' " Mr. Mann, in his " Sequel," 
draws largely upon rumor. He says, " I have be€n told " ; "I 
have heard on good authority " ; "I add, upon good authority " ; 
*' I rejoice to learn," &c. Rumor is as good for me as for Mr. 
Mann. " I have heard, on good authority," that, previous to the 
last Commencement at Brown University, the name of a gentle- 
man was presented by the President, as a candidate for the honorary 
degree of LL. D. The candidate was a graduate of that college, 
and, for some time, was a tutor. Rumor says, that Rev. Dr. 
Sharpe was there — that he opposed the proposal, on the ground 
that the Eutopian notions of the gentleman would do no honor to 
tlie college. So zealous, so successful was the opposition, that the 
application was unanimously rejected, "so I am informed." Mr. 
Mann will know to whom I refer. The very mention of this disap- 
pointment may do some good. Perhaps some college, this season, 



THE HON. HORACE MANN. 11 

may have compassion on the necessities of the disappointed. I 
hope the inquiries of the Secretary are satisfactorily answered. 

THE FACT. 

On page 5, the Secretary refers to a fact related in my sermon. 
He alludes to it on page 7, and gives it a bad name. He quotes it, 
magnifies it, repeats it — professes to be overwhelmed with indig- 
nation at it — prints it in plain type — prints it in italics — does all 
but deny it. If it be nol a fact, why does he not deny it ? I call 
attention to this dishonest mode of dealing — pretending to call in 
question a fact, which he dare not deny. 

MR. MANN's EXAMINATION OF MY PROOFS. 

I have made certain charges against the Secretary — so he af- 
firms. He has called for " proof or withdrawal." It would have 
afforded me great pleasure to have withdrawn all my statements in 
respect to Mr.* Mann's official course, if I could have done so in 
truth. But I can not withdraw, believing, as I do, that the official 
influence of the Secretary of the Board is against the best interest 
of the Commonwealth. My opinion of his principles, and their 
tendency, has not resulted from a hasty or partial view of the case. 
It has resulted from a watchful observation of what he has written 
and what he has done. I hold no opinion, in relation to him, that 
I would not change, if I saw cause so to do. I have said nothing 
about him, or against him, that I would not withdraw, at once, in 
terms as strong as those in which they were said. If the danger 
does not exist, to which I have alluded — if Mr. Mann holds no 
such opinions as I have ascribed to him — if he exerts no such 
influence — I should be as happy to know it as any one living. 
Nor would I delay one moment to retract, and to make the Secre- 
tary an ample and satisfactory apology. 

With such feelings, I have seated myself to the careful reading 
of Mr. Mann's examination of what he calls my " leading proofs," 



12 MR. SMITH IN REPLY TO 

resolved to give the Secretary all the advantage he might be en* 
titled to, and, if I had mistaken his opinions, as I drew them from 
his writings, to make, in all cases, a prompt and cheerful acknowl- 
edgment. Nor have I been diverted from this purpose by the 
offensive character of parts of his " Sequel." He has a gift at 
calling hard names. If a professor of black epithets was needed, 
I know of no one who would be a more prominent and successful 
candidate than Mr. Mann. On page 10, he seems to feel certain 
that we are not in Botany Bay. On reading his " Sequel," one 
would be inclined to think he had recently been there. Such 
loose, coarse, spiteful, malignant, indecent, and false, but Mannly, 
(barring the orthography,) expressions and epithets, in such num- 
bers, I never before read, in so few pages. I have never seen 
them equalled any where. A writer rarely resorts to them till the 
argument fails. 

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS. 

Mr. Mann has not answered my charge under this' head. It is 
this : That he is not friendly to the Bible as a school-book — that 
parts of the Bible, he affirms, are not true — other parts not fit to 
be read. I do not charge him with calling in question a verse or an 
expression ; but the charge is, that he does not believe in the canon- 
ical Scriptures, and, if honest, cannot but be opposed to their use 
in school. As I have said in my pamphlet — 

" If the Bible, entire, open, without omission or expurgation, be 
not the inspired word of God, infallible in all matters of faith and 
duty, what do we want of it in schools, or any where else ? How 
can you be in favor of it as a school-book ? For what is it essen- 
tial, if it sink to a level with human composition at best, while its 
worst aspect is, that it claims to a distinction and authority to which 
it is not entitled in truth ? Officially you recommend it, but with 
that goes out th,e fact, that its claims to inspiration, in the opinion of 
the Secretary, are not to be conceded — for they are not founded 
in truth. What is the Bible worth, if it have no authority ? You 



THE HON. HORACE MANN. VS 

throw aside, as obsolete, the system of education it originales, why 
not the source from whence that system sprung ? You aim to im- 
prove Common Schools, why not begin at the fount .'' If not 
inspired, what advantage has Moses over Dr. Howe — Solomon 
over VV, B. Fowle — or Paul over yourself? Why may not the 
substitute be fairly made ? Indeed, it is so, as far as the School 
Journal of Massachusetts is concerned. 

" I believe you to be honest in your views, therefore you can 
have no very strong motive to throw the affections of children 
around the Bible. No plan can so effectually get the Bible, ulti- 
mately, out of Common Schools, as that which rejects a pai-t as not 
true, and another part as not fit to be read. The bitterest enemy 
the Bible ever had, could do no more — would ask no more — 
than this. You condemn the Bible out of its own mouth. Those 
who believe and so teach, are displacing the Bible for human codes 
of ethics. All who authorize and endorse such influence, aid in all 
the evil that is done, though they command a thousand copies per 
day to be introduced into our public schools." 

And how does Mr. Mann reply ? That he does believe the 
canonical Scriptures ? That I am wholly mistaken in my asser- 
tions .'' He does not. A single line would have placed the matter 
beyond cavil. His very mode of answering it, is a proof that he does 
not receive the Bible as the Word of God. He answers that he has 
" reverently read the Scriptures every morning," at the meetings of 
the Teachers' Institute, (page 20.) What then ? May not a per- 
son read the Bible, in accordance with public expectation, and to 
answer an end, without believing it — even though the reader of it 
tells us himself that he did it " reverently " ? Must every man who 
reads the Seventh Annual Report of Horace Mann, from necessity, 
believe it ? Why not say that he believes it, as well as say all this > 

But he goes farther, and asserts, on page 21, that certain critics 
affirm that I. John v., 7, is spurious. Be it so. Does that prove 
that Mr. Mann believes in the canonical books of the Bible, which 
these critics pronounce to be genuine .J* He will not say so — he 
has not. 



114 1*8. SMITH tN BEPLY TO 

But he goes on to reply — 

" A century ago, in the time of Mill, there were thirty thotisan(! 
various readings; there are now a hundred thousand or more. 
May we not exercise our private judgments upon these ; and may 
we not say what we think, in a private conversation, with a private 
individual, without being denounced by you as aiding in getting 
?he Bible out of schools ? or as exercising an influence adverse td 
the Bible in schools ? " 

Mr. Mann is guilty of a double deception in this quotation. 1. In 
leaving the impression that those thirty thousand various readings 
referred to some important truth or moral precept, on which a man 
might wish to exercise some " private judgment," while he 
hides the fact that in a vast majority of. cases they amounted 
Vo nothing more than the crossing of a t, the dotting of an I, 
or spelling the word honor with our instead of or. The very critic* 
whose industry has enabled Mr. Mann to make the above assertion, 
emphatically state, that even in the worst manuscript now extant, 
not one article of faith or moral precept is either perverted or lost. 
One of the most eminent critics (Dr. Bently) says — " Put the 
thirty thousand various readings that have been discovered in manu- 
scripts of the New Testament into the hands of a knave or a fool, 
and make them as many more, if numbers of copies can ever be 
found to reach that sum, and yet, with the most sinistrous and ab- 
surd choice, he shall not extinguish the light of one chapter, nor so 
disguise Christianity but that every feature of it will be the same." 
2» Mr. Mann intimates that the question at issue had reference tO' 
those minute points of criticism, while his quibbles on these point's 
show that he shrinks from an open, honest avowal of his opinion on 
the inspiration of the Scriptures. 

The Secretary makes great boasts as to the number of towns 
into which the Bible has been introduced. He says nothing of the 
schools into which it has been introduced, or from which it has been 
excluded. The towns in the State are less than 400 — the schools 
more than 3000. 1 have seen no evidence yet to show that the 
Bible is used in as many schools as it was ten years ago. While 



THE HON. HORACE MANN. 15 

ihere is evidence that the effort to get it out of school in sonne cases 
has been successful. " I am informed on good authority," that a 
teacher from one of the Norman schools took a district school ia 
the vicinity of Boston. At the last examination, a clergyman pres- 
ent requested that the scholars might read out of the Testanient. 
The teacher very pertly and boldly assured the clergyman, in the 
presence of the school, that she kept no such book, and did not 
think it a proper book to be read in school. After some search, a 
copy was found. I commend this case as an illustration of the re- 
mark that common schools are to be made a "counterpoise to reli- 
gious instruction at home and in Sabbath Schools." All the credit 
of any action the Board may have taken on this matter is due the 
Rev. Dr. Robbins, now of Hartford. He introduced a resolution, 
when a member of the Board, in relation to the Bible in schools. 
The resolution was strenuously opposed, " so I am informed on good 
authority," by Mr. J. W. James, whom Mr. Mann pronounces an 
Episcopalian. A report drawn up by Mr. Bates, of Westfield, 
finally settled the matter. 

Let us come back to the Secretary. He admitted to the editor of 
the Puritan, Rev. Mr. Woodbridge, that he did not believe the whole 
Bible to be the inspired Word of God — that parts were not 
proper to be read in school. But this was private conversation ! 
Does Mr. Mann have one language for the private ear and another 
for the public ? Does the fact (which he admits) that he made the 
confession in private, prove that he did not make it at all ? It was 
not private in the sense Mr. Mann uses the word. It was in e.xposi- 
tion with Mr. Mann's views upon the Bible, the Rod, and Religion, in 
schools. It was sought by Mr. Mann, that the Editor might have the 
Secretary's views. It was a long continued interview. Mr. Mann 
hoped by it to correct certain erroneous notions which were afloat in 
respect to himself, some of which had found their way into the Puri- 
tan. It was under such circumstances, when he would go as far as 
possible, that he asserted his disbelief in the inspiration of the Scrip- 
tures — not of this verse, or that — but of whole books. I knew of 
ihis interview and its results long before I preached my sermon. 



16 MR. SMITH IN REPLY TO 

When I referred to it, in my letter which Mr. Mann reviews, I read 
that part to Mr. Woodbridge, and he said I had slated it truly. 

How does Mr. Mann rebut this testimony ? Does he deny ? Does 
he accuse Mr. Woodbridge of stating what did not take place ? 
Hear him — 

" There is something so outrageous, Mr. Smith, in your hunting 
up this private conversation, giving it so false a turn, and then pub- 
lishing it to the world, that it amazes me into silence." 

In other parts of his " Sequel" the Secretary calls me a liar. He 
accuses me of crimes which ought, he thinks, to hurl me from the 
ministry, and he is waiting to see if they will. But he is so as- 
tounded at my hunting up this testimony, and giving it such a turn, 
as my authority said it ought to bear, that it has " amazed him to 
SILENCE." His is so amazing silent, that he cannot even deny it ! ! 

ROD IN SCHOOL. 

If Mr. Mann is entitled to credit, I have been guilty of a series of 
misrepresentations in all I have said under this head. More than this, 
I have lied so shockingly that I am not willing to serve up truth even 
as a condiment. I shall follow him through his examination of my 
leading proofs. I think the reader will agree with me, that a man 
who deals so slightly in truth cannot be a very perfect judge of that 
article when he meets it. I should think the words, " evasion," 
" misrepresentation," would blister his tongue. 

The Secretary begins — the italics are from my book, the com- 
mon type his own : — 

1. " Those who use the rod and contend for its necessity^ you 
hold up as adopting the terrible motto, '■Authority, Force, Fear, 
Pain: " 

Here you change a particular and limited application of my re- 
mark into a universal one. — p. 24. 

Reply. — Mr. Mann deceives. He is not talking of a particular case ; 
he is discussing the general principle of his mode of governing, in 
contrast from those who contend that the Rod cannot be dispensed 



THE HON. HOBACE MANN. 17 

with. I give you his words : " Authority, Force, Fear, Pain. 
These are the four corner-stones of School Discipline." Not 
duty, affection, love of knowledge and love of truth ; but power, 
violence, terror, suffering ! Where, through this whole section of 
^'' Remarks^'' is there any recognition of the sentiment of that disciple 
whom Jesus loved above the rest .? " There is no fear in love : 
Perfect love casteth out fear, because fear hath torment." But all 
this is discarded in the philosophy of the thirty-one. The brief but 
terrible motto on their banner is, Authority, Force, Fear, Pain." 
(Reply to the Boston Masters, pages 133, 134.) He speaks of the 
*' whole section of Remarks," " of the philosophy of," iiot one 
master, but " the Thirty-one." He speaks their brief and terrible 
motto ; yet he has the boldness to say that he was speaking of a 
particular school ! It has pleased Mr. Mann to attempt this evasion. 

The Secretary says : " 2. ' You quote and endorse the sentiment 
that the rod loould never be needed, if right instruction toere 
given to a child.'' 

In support of this, you refer to an essay written by a gen'.leman, 
noio a Grammar Master in one of the Boston schools; — surely a 
good authority for me, though you are careful to keep this fact out 
of sight." 

Reply. — I repeat the assertion. I say that the above sentiment 
was quoted and endorsed by the Secretary. He quotes it in his 
Reply to the Boston Masters. He quotes it with approbation. He 
quotes it for this purpose, he says, " not only to corroborate my 
OWN VIEWS by their invincible strength, but to adorn there the 
pages by their beautiful spirit." (Reply, 139.) He seems to deny 
my statement, while he does not deny it. It has pleased the Secre- 
tary to attempt this second evasion. 

The Secretary says : 3. " You estimate the ability at^d fitness of 
u teacher by his capacity to govern without puiiishment.'''' The fol- 
lowing is my expression : " This however is certain, that when a 
teacher preserves order and secures progress, the minimum of pun- 
ishment shows the maximum of gratification." Reply. Be sure 
the above is Mr. Mann's expression, and who ever said it was not. 
2* 



18 MK. SMITH IN REPLY TO 

But does the fact, that he wrote what he calls his expression, prove 
that he does not " estimate the fitness and ability of a teacher by 
his capacity to govern without punishment"? How small, hovir 
dishonest such an equivocation, such an attempt to make men believe 
that I referred to that '■'■Expression^'' as the most he had said on 
that subject. Why does he pass by unnoticed his words which I 
quoted to sustain the assertion, p. 40 ? Here it is, taken from his 
Report to the Board : 

" The great desideratum is, to find teachers who can govern 
without resorting to physical force. If this is not done, or cannot 
be done, then the next step is to prepare such teachers as fast as the 
time will allow." [Common School Journal, vol. viii : 67.] 

He goes further than this ; he affirms that to prohibit the use of 
the rod " under all circumstances, is demanding more than many 
teachers have as yet ability to perform." [Com. Sch. Journal, Vol. 
iii. 154.] The Secretary equivocates ; but he does not deny the 
charge. It has pleased Mr. Mann to attempt this third evasion. 

The Secretary quotes, 4. " You say that the use of the rod in 
schools is twice cursed, cursing him that gives and him that takes 
— nay, three times cursed." An explanation is given by Mr. Mann 
to show the audaciousness of the above assertion. He insinuates 
that the above sentence was the words of another and not his own. 
He would make it appear that the quotation was taken from a cor- 
respondent who wrote in the Journal ; and he introduced the above 
passage to " demolish it," so he says. He is certain that he " actu- 
ally answered it on the spot." Reply. — A more glaring and auda- 
cious attempt to deceive never was made. The expression, " The 
use of the rod is twice cursed, cursing him that gives and him 
that takes, nay, three times cursed," is Mr. Mann's own language, 
found in his "Appended Editorials," and not in the article to 
which he replies. Though he pretends to concede the expression 
as if used by his correspondent ; though he pretends to use his 
language, and, to make the deception complete, uses marks of 
quotation in his sequel, p. 25, yet his correspondent made no such 
statement for Mr. Mann to concede. The expression is the Secre- 



THE HON. HORACE MANN. Id 

tary's own. He complains that I have not presented vvliat preced- 
ed and followed the quotation ; I will do both. Read, read, and 
blush for your State, who has such a saleried officer over its schools. 
The Secretary says, in his Common School Journal, Vol. iii., 154, in 
"Appended Editorials," as follows : " We cannot but believe that in 
prohibiting a resort to it (the rod) under all circumstances, and 
with regard to all teachers, and all schools, he is demanding more 
than many teachers have as yet the ability to perform : and should 
he succeed in proscribing it altogether, he would cause the substitu- 
tion of other modes of punishment, equaUy objectionable in princi- 
ple, and far more injurious to the character of the recipient. We 
are willing to concede to our friend, that the tise of the rod in 
school is twice cursed, cursing him that gives and him that takes ; 
nay, three times cursed, if he pleases ; for it often leads the inflictor 
and the sufferer to curse each other; — but still we contend it is not 
the greatest curse for either party, giver or receiver ; that were it 
abolished, greater curses would come in to supply its place ; and 
that, instead of the one devil of the rod, which is cast out, we 
should have the seven devils of anarchy, hastening to take its place : 
so that the last state of that school would be worse than the first." 

Now Mr. Mann says that he conceded it to demolish it ; did he do 
so ? Does he not use the word concede to imply that he admitted 
the " rod in school " to be a three-fold curse. Does he deny that it 
is a curse ? Does he protest against the expression or sentiment ? 
Because he says something else, does it prove he did not say that, just 
as I quoted it, and for that purpose .' Because he speaks of seven dev- 
ils, is that evidence that he did not call the rod the " one devil of a 
rod ?" Because he admits, that, owing to the inability of many teach- 
ers, a seven-fold curse must follow its prohibition — is that a proof 
that he has not called the rod a threefold curse ? Mr. Mann, 
it is said^ allows the use of the rod, in some cases. Who has said 
he does not ? On page 40 of the very correspondence he is re- 
viewing, I say — 

" You do allow the use of the rod from necessity. But it is not 
the necessity that springs from the nature of the child, but from the 
incomjjetency of the master. You say you have only in a few 



20 MR. SMITH IN REPLY TO 

instances secured teachers who can govern without it. Your own 
words are, " the great desideratum is, to Jind teachers who can govern 
without resorting to physical force. If this is not done, or cannot 
be done, then the next step is, to prepare such teachers as fast as 
the time will allow." [Common School Journal, Vol. viii : 67.] 

This is exactly the issue. Mr. Mann places the necessity of the 
rod in the incompetency of the Master. He who uses it, on his theo* 
ry, testifies to his own incompetency in the act. Here is this Hon* 
orable Secretary accusing me of audaciousness, in quoting his own 
words, — using terms which will leave the impression that he de* 
nies their authorship, — placing around them marks of quotation to 
make the deception complete, and then daring to accuse another of 
misrepresentation, daring to give utterrance to his pretended horror of 
a falsehood. It has pleased Mr. Mann to attempt this fourth evasion. 

The Secretary quotes on — 5. '■'■Masters who use thejrod, you de^ 
signate as ' consenting to turn jiagellators to the parish.'' " 

" This expression is not mine. Never, in any way, have 1 used it, 
approved it, or assented to it. It is taken from the same article of 
the same correspondent, above referred to, — an article which I ve- 
hemently protested against, on the spot. This expression, too, not 
mine, contested, and, as I think, refuted by me at the time, you 
have quoted as mine." 

The Secretary did not dissent from this expression. He did not 
refute it. He did not refer to it at all. He allows it to appear in 
his journal, (every page of which is subject to the rigid rule of the 
editor, so says his publisher.) He calls it an " excellent communi- 
cation ;" dissents from certain parts, but neither " protests against," 
" refutes," nor even alludes to the expression referred to. (Com. 
Sch. Jour. Vol. 3, p. 154.) It has pleased the honorable Secretary 
to attempt this fifth evasion. 

Mr. Mann quotes again. 6. " You affirm that it is a greater 
evil to keep boys in subjection by the terror of the rod, than to turn 
them loose into the streets.'''' 

" Precisely as before I This sentiment is not from any thing I 
ever wrote. It is from the above mentioned communication ; and 
80 far from adopting or endorsing it, I replied to it, on the spot." 



THE HON, HORACE MANN. 21 

I am happy to state, for variety's sake, if for no other, that Mr. 
Mann did, in relation to the above suggestion, do all that he states. 
Fully, ably, and earnestly, he protested against it on the spot. I was 
led unintentionally into the error from the general character of his 
reply. " If it pleased Mr. Smith to say that thing," it pleases him 
much more to retract it. I should have said that the sentiment quot- 
ed, was the language of the Principal of the West Newton School, 
Mr. C. Pierce. 

The Secretary continues. 7. " In your Eighth Annual Report " 
— " IJind in almost every instance, in the school returns, in tvhich 
any thing is said against the use of the rod, or the ahility to gov- 
ern loithuut it for a season, the fact has a conspicuous place in the 
report, — pullished in capitals or italics." 

In the first place, there is not a " school return " in my Eighth Re- 
port ; nor aught that bears any resemblance to a " school return," 
on this subject. 2. In the Report of the Board, — not mine, — there 
are some letters, — not school returns, — highly commendatory of 
teachers who had been educated at one of the Normal schools. 3. 
The capitals and italics which you intimate to be mine, and used for 
the purpose of arresting attention, were copied from the letters 
themselves ; and, if offences at all, are the offences of their respec- 
tive authors, not mine." 

Reply. I should have said, " Report of the Board." Instead of 
" school returns," I should have said " letters." While he thus cor- 
rects the.se trivial errors, he glides away without denying the fact re- 
ferred. It has pleased Mr. Mann to attempt this sixth evasion. 

But once more Mr. Mann says : — 8. " You further say, that when 
the right kind of teachers shall be secured, the rod, or corporal 
punishment, will come into total disuse." 

" Here the words ' total disuse,' which you have quoted as mine, 
are not mine, but were quoted by me from the antagonist with whom 
I was then dealing, and were signalized as his, by quotation marks." 

Reply. I quoted the words from his own paragraph. He says, " In 
the introductory paragraph of the article on ' School Discipline,' it 
is said that I was confidently expecting, even predicting as being 



22 MR. SMITH IN REPLY TO 

near at hand, the day of the 'total disuse' of corporal punishment 
in our schools. The assertion that I ever predicted the day of the 
* total disuse^' of corporal punishment, aj being ' near at hand^ 
is wholly untrue, and it is difficult to suppose that the writer did not 
know it to be so. Amid so many disturbing forces, I never attempt- 
ed to cast the horoscope which should determine that day^ (An- 
swer to Rejoinder of the Boston Masters, p. 12.) After using those 
words himself — copying them from an opponent — not to deny that 
he predicted that the " total disuse," of the rod would yet take place 
— but simply to deny that he had predicted it as being near at hand, 
he admits all I charge him with, while he quibbles about two words 
which he introduced into a paragraph, without then objecting to them. 
It has pleased the Secretary to attempt this seventh evasion. 



ONE OF THE MAIN PROOFS EXCLUDED. 

Mr. Mann says, that in replying to the above, he has noticed " all 
my leading proofs." One of the most important he has not referred 
to at all. It is on page 42 of the correspondence : 

" In the conversation with the editor of the Puritan, you informed 
him, that he did not understand your views upon school discipline. 
Mr. Woodbridge made you this fair offer : He said if you would 
write, in so many words, that you were in favor of the rod in 
schools, under certain circumstances, and sign it, he would publish 
it in the Puritan, and all misapprehension would cease. You de- 
clined to do it ; nor would you allow him to say it for you." 

Does Mr. Mann deny that such an offer was made to him ? 
Does he deny that he declined it ? Does he explain ? Does he al- 
lude to it ? He is again amazed to silence. That silence is his 
condemnation. 

What, then, has Mr. Mann proved ? This : that I, in applying to 
him the remark he calls No. 6, made a mistake. That I called the 
Report Ats, when I should have said the Board of Education. Tsaid 
"school returns," when I should have said "letters." Not one 



THE HON. HORACE MANN. 23 

tiling else demands correction. I again address mypelf to Mr, 
Mann, as I have done in my " Correspondence," to which he has 
attempted to reply. 

" You inform me that the Board of Education has control over 
Normal Schools in this State. What is the system in those schools^ 
on corporal punishment ? Mr. Pierce, the head of the West 
Newton Normal School — the gentleman to whom Mr. Mann is 
willing to concede that the rod is a three-fold curse — as quoted in 
the ' Remarks of Boston Masters,' p. 13, says : ' I would state, thai 
my theory goes to the entire exclusion of the premium and emula-! 
tion system, and of corporal punishment.* Dr. Howe is in rap-* 
tures with the system on which the Normal School is based^ 
* Because it rejects all appeals to bodily fears, and all appeal la 
selfish feelings.' [Common School Journal, vol. II., p. 238.] 

" Already five hundred teachers, with these views, and pledged 
to this system, have gone out to teach ; others, you say, are to be 
multiplied, 'as fast as time will allow.' When none but teachers 
so trained shall be in common schools^ the day whose dawn you 
perceive will appear, and^ the ' total disuse ' of the rod will take 
place. 

" In view of all this, will you say that no ' effort has been made 
to get the rod out of schools ' .? Will you say that there is no se/* 
tied purpose to do this > You inform me that you are opposed to 
the excessive, the barbarous use of the rod — and who is not } 
That is one thing, and making its occasional use evil and only evil^ 
cursing both master and scholar, with a three-fold curse, is another 
thing. There is quite a difference between the excessive use of a 
penalty in government, and an experiment to govern without any 
penalty at all. Should the Secretary of State, of Massachusetts, 
throw himself against all penalty in principle, and contend that it 
was only tolerated on account of the incompetency of present 
rulers — and that when Massachusetts should choose the right sort 
of men, who could govern without fines or imprisonment, than an 
end would come to ' authority, force, fear, pain ' — to fines, impris- 



24 MR. SMITH IN REPLY TO 

onment, halters — it would be a lame defence for him meekly to 
reply, that he was opposed to unmerciful punishments. 

" Such I conceive to be your position." [ " Correspondence," 
pp. 42-3. ^ 

RELIGION IN SCHOOLS. 

I have not accused Mr. Mann with being opposed to what he calls 
religion in schools. On the contrary, I charge him with being a 
dogmatist — a sectarian, zealous and confident, as all sectarians 
are. I have accused him, and do accuse him, of deciding what 
those " principles of piety " are, which the Constitution demands to 
be taught in schools, and of deciding what may be taught in schools, 
and what shall not. My words are : 

" The Constitution commands that ' the principles of piety ' 
shall be taught in schools. It is made the duty of masters to teach 
those ' principles of piety,' as much as it is their duty to teach arith- 
metic or grammar. Who is to judge what those principles of piety 
are .'' How they shall be taught ? By what sanctions they shall be 
enforced ? Who shall decide what sectarianism is ? Who, speak- 
ing by authority, shall proclaim what we may teach, what we may 
not, of religion in schools ? You have already done this, by author- 
ity, or without it. Certain views that you entertain, you call reli- 
gion, or 'piety.' These you allow to be taught in schools. You 
enforce them in your lectures, reports, and Journal. Those which 
clash with your peculiar views, you reject as ' dogmatic theology,' 
or ' sectarianism.' By what authority do you settle those grave 
and important questions for every town and school district in Mas- 
sachusetts ? Have the Board of Education decided these questions.' 
If so, on what grounds ? Have you, by virtue of your office 
decided these points.? Certain I am, that practically, they have 
been decided, and in that decision common truths have been ruled 
out, which are essential to a virtuous life, as well as to the salvation 
of the soul. You substitute, as far as you have influence, for the 



tHK HON. HORACE MANN. "25 

principles of piety allowed by the Constitution, nothing above, noth- 
ing more than Deism, bald and blank." [Correspondence, p. 44.] 

One of my proofs, brought forward to prove that the Secretary 
of the Board of Education had decided this important question, and 
decided it for the State, was his admission to Rev. E. D. Moore. 
Mr. Moore gave me in writing what I have printed. He gave it to 
me, with knowledge of the correspondence that was passing on this 
subject. He gave it to me for the purpose to which it is applied 
It is this : 

" ' I asked Mr. Mann what was, in his view, sectarian ; whether 
we might teach the existence of God ? ' Yes. ' May we inculcate 
the duties we owe to one God ? ' Yes. ' May we enforce those 
duties by an appeal to a future state of reward and punishment .' ' 
No ! ! ' Such, in substance,' adds Mr. Moore, ' was the conversa- 
tion. I thus learned that the Secretary of the Board of Education 
construed the laws as excluding from public schools all but Deism, 
and that he vsras unwilling that any thing better should be taught.' " 
[Correspondence, p. 47.] 

To this I added the following : 

The " principles of piety," as you illustrate and enforce them, 
exclude all that treats of human depravity — salvation by the blood 
of Jesus Christ — the atonement and the sanctions to a good life, 
drawn from the world to come. All these common truths, held by 
nine-tenths of all in this State, who profess any form of Christian 
faith, are ruled out of schools by the high authority of the Secretary 
of the Board of Education ; they are declared to be sectarian and 
unconstitutional. Yoij have settled, by the authority of the Board, 
or without that authority, what piety is, according to the Statute. 
Your influence is derived from the Legislature ; through you, the 
people are told what they must receive and be satisfied with, as a 
construction of the Constitution. All towns must hear — all districts 
obey, else incur the penalty of forfeiture of their portion of the 
school money. 

Some, perhaps, would like to interpret the phrase, " Principles of 
piety, in the Constitution, for themselves. They have vague notions 



^$ MR. SMITH II* REPLY T6 

about the rights of conscience, established by the laws of Grod.^^ 
But you silence these clamors, by calling such persons " a small, 
but persistent and intolerant party, who are determined to force dog- 
matic theology into common schools, or scatter those schools to the 
winds; and, among other things, they are guilty of '■'^ thrusting for- 
ward private opinions.'''' [Re-Rejoinder, Boston Masters-109.] 

Is it so, then — that in the old Bay State, where civil freedom was 
cradled amid the storms of December, and where, after years of 
suffering, religious freedom was first asserted and understood — that 
any party, I care not how small it be, may not say, openly and 
boldly, what it believes the temporal and eternal interest of children 
demand, without the official rebuke of thrusting fotwdrd private 
opinions ? Are you so high, so strong in the popular will, that your- 
self, and those who think with you alone express public opinion, and 
all else is the mere echo of a private mind ? And are we to be told 
that when a gentleman expresses his opinion upon religious instruc- 
tion in common schools, he is to be rebuked, as thrusting those 
opinions forward ? I have not so learned the " rights of con- 
science," to which you make such frequent reference. My code of 
religious freedom is not so dogmatic as this. Does your position, as 
Secretary of the Board, give you a monopoly in this matter ? Sup- 
pose this "small, persistent, and intolerant party, are determined to 
force dogmatic theology into our schools " — comes not that act with 
as good a gi'ace, as broad a constitutional right, as from yourself? 
When you assert the native purity of our race, and on that assump- 
tion build your theory of no punishments in schools, do you teach no 
sectarianism ? Do you not, with a dash of your pen, strike out a 
fundamental truth, received by all Christian sects, save onG ? If I 
may not teach native depravity in schools, because the Constitution 
forbids it, may you teach native holiness ? If I may not teach the 
doctrine of Election, as explained in Rom. i;f., may you so pervert 
and misapply I. John, iv., 18, as you have done, to sustain your 
view of no corporal punishment } [Reply to Boston Masters, 133.] 
If I may not teach the strict divinity of Jesus Christ, from John 1., 
18, may you so teacl» his humanity as to contradict the Word of 



THE HON, HORACE MANN. 27 

Inspiration that he was ' God manifest in the flesh ' ? If I may not 
warn children of future punishment, as I read Matt, xxv., may you 
teach that there is no punishment after death ? 

"It is proper to keep dogmatic theology out of school. Let it be 
kept out on both sides — the dogmatism of unbelief, as well as the 
dogmatism of faith. The law that closes my mouth, closes yours. 
The Constitution which forbids me to thrust forioard my private 
opinions, bids you keep yours to yourself." 

How does Mr. Mann meet this statement ? Let us see. I shall 
set this reply in order, and number his answers, for the convenience 
of those who read. 

1. In alluding to the Secretary's definition of the words, " prin- 
ciples of piety," he says I am " touching solemn matters," (p. 31.) 
When I say that the Constitution allows us to teach in schools some- 
thing more than Deism or Paganism, I " have attempted to de- 
nounce persons whose creed is not exactly coincident with my 
own," (p. 31.) If this were so, does it relieve Mr. Mann ? Does 
it show, from any thing he has said, that he is willing that any thing 
more or better shall be, or can be, constitutionally taught .? He 
has not said so — he will not say so. 

2. On page 32, he becomes eloquent about the " Pilgrim Fath- 
ers." Did they, " by their self-expatriation," design to give birth to 
a common school system, from which religion should be excluded, 
or if introduced, should be of that kind which is below Paganism .'' 
He talks about "the right and sanctity of private judgment" — 
" the inviolability of conscience," (p. 32.) But one may so talk, 
and yet leave unanswered the charge of officially making such a 
decision, as to violate those very rights of which he speaks ; and I 
charge the Secretary with doing this. He denounces those who 
" ask more," as a " small, but persistent and intolerant party," who 
are determined to force dogmatic theology into common schools, or 
scatter those schools to the winds. [Re-Rejoinder Boston Masters, 
p. 109.] And have this small party, no rights ? Certainly not, if 
Mr. Mann's practice may be set over against his theory. 



28 MR. SMITH IN REPLY TO 

3. Mr. Mann proceeds : 

" But let us hear the judgment of honest men on this subject." 
He then asserts that Messrs. James Humphrey and Hooker made 

their examination of the school, on Dec. 3d, last. Dr. Humphrey 

did not visit the school at that time. He was sick at Charlestown. 

Omitting the word recreation from my statemeni, these honest men 

make no denial of what I say in my pamphlet. 

4. Mr. Mann says (43) that Mr. Moore held no such conversation 
with him as I report. Yet in the Reporter of March 4, 1847, Mr. 
Moore says of Mr. Mann's denial, " we acknowledge the abounding 
lenity of the Hon. Secretary, in forbearing to ' necessitate ' ques- 
tions of veracity between him and ourselfy 

Amid all the dust that Mr. Mann raises, the Secretary hopes to 
escape. He does not deny that he told Mr. Moore that he was not 
willing that the duties of life should be enforced by an appeal to a 
future state of rewards and punishment. He does not admit any 
where that he is now willing to have any thing more or better taught. 

The next question at issue is not whether Mr. Mann believes in 
future punishment, or not ; in a future life, or not ; in the existence 
of God, or not; but, simply, whether, as Secretary of the Board of 
Education, he gives such a construction of the Constitution of Mas- 
sachusetts, as to make it unconstitutional to teach any thing above 
bald and blank Deism. I charge this upon Mr. Mann ; I cite his 
admissions. He quibbles about the monosyllable, "No"; he as- 
serts that he did not visit the editor of the Recorder to ask redress : 
but he does not deny the main point, viz., that he rules out of com- 
mon schools all religious teaching — all those principles of piety 
which derive their sanctions from the future world. This I charge 
him with; this he does not deny. I charge him with settling 
officially, with the dash of his pen, the great question, what those 
Principles of Piety are, which the Constitution makes it the duty of 
the Master to teach. I charge him with standing at the entrance to 
common schools and making his own notions the standard of the 
character and quantity of the religion that may be introduced into 
schools. I charge him with beating down, insulting, and treating 



THE HtDN. HORACE MANN. 



39 



Avith marked contempt, all who dissent from his views — all who 
ask for those common sanctions which are as essential to this life 
as the next. I charge him with denouncing those who dissent from 
his opinion — who ask for something better, something more scrip- 
tural, — as "dogmatic," "persistent," working with a resolution to 
force sectarianism into common schools, or to scatter them to the 
wind. I charge him with accusing those who ask that our common 
school system may be kept where it has rested for 200 years, of 
" thrusting forward private opinion." 

And Mr. Mann meets these charges by talking about the " rights 
of conscience," and the " fires of Smithfield." 

In regard to Gov. Briggs, Mr. Mann says : " Gov. Briggs ap- 
pears as a sanctioner, approver, commender of those very works in 
the School Library, which, as you aver, inculcate the most deadly 
heresy, — even universal salvation." What then ? Suppose the 
Governor was imposed upon— admit he confided in certain repre- 
sentations made to him, and endorsed a book upon trust, does that 
prove that Mr. Mann has not said that the Constitution forbids the in- 
culcation of any moral duties, drawn from the sanctions of the fu- 
ture life ? Does it prove that Gov. Briggs, in referring to such sanc- 
tion in his proclamation, and in addresses in public schools, has not 
violated the constitution he has sworn to defend, if Mr, Mann be right 
and that the Governor does not " stand rebuked by his Secretary ? ' 
And is Gov. Briggs the only person who has endorsed books on rep- 
resentation ^ Who does not remember the far-famed " District 
Library," published by Wm. B. Fowle, the present publisher of the 
Common School Journal, and Nahum Capen ? A library issued 
to guard the public morals, and " Keep pernicious books out of 
Common School Libraries " ! A library purchased by money ap- 
propriated by the State of Massachusetts ! A library that contained 
books which the Mercantile Journal denounced as " replete with ri- 
baldry, obscenity, profanity, bacchanal and amatory songs." — 
(Mer. Jour., Jan. 30, 1843.) Yet as recommendations to the library, 
the names of Hon. Marcus Morton, Levi Lincoln, Jared Sparks, LL. 
D., Richard Storrs, D. D., Rev. Wm. Crowell, and others, were 
3* 



30 MR. SMITH IN REPLY TO 

appended. And though one of the books was withdrawn, it was 
not till exposed in a public journal, and though withdrawn, it bore, 
as a part of the library, the high endorsement I have named. 

The Secretary refers to the notice Gov. Briggs was " graciously " 
pleased to take of him, in his annual address to the Legislature. — 
Does that prove that Mr. Mann has not construed the constitution so 
that nothing but Deism, and that of the lowest sort, shall be taught 
in the common schools .'' Does it prove that Gov. Briggs has not, 
in his allusions to the bearing this life has upon the next, violated the 
Constitution, if his Secretary is right ? It does not touch that ques- 
tion, which was and is the real question at issue. All who knew 
Mr. Mann's propensity to " burn incense to his own drag," were 
persuaded that in some place he would insert, in his reply, this pub- 
lic notice. As the honorable gentleman is anxious to know how 
I looked when I read that part of the Governor'*s message, I will do 
what I can toward gratifying him. If he can imagine how a man 
looks when he reads a hearty joke, he can form some idea of my 
looks on this interesting occasion. The compliment paid Mr. Mann, 
is one of those happy specimens of language, in which a person 
seems to say a great deal, when in truth he did not intend to say 
but very little. On reading it, one is almost tempted to think that 
the Governor had been taking lessons in non-committalism from the 
Hon. Secretary. Gov. Briggs says that the Secretary is " indefat- 
igable," and who doubts it ! Were he less so, it would be better 
for the Commonwealth. But more — he is " accomplished," — oth- 
ers have often said as much. Ten years' service in the State[ought 
long ago to have settled that question. Even the Secretary himself 
allows that he is so much so, that " troops of rhetorical figures" as- 
sail him when he writes, and he is " compelled to bar the door against 
them." Gov. Briggs says even more than this : his " services in the 
cause of common schools, will earn him the lasting gratitude of the 
generation to which he belongs.^'' The generation that is to follow, 
who will reap lie harvest the "indefatigable and accomplished 
Secretary " is sowing, will speak for themselves. That he will be 
remembered by them I have no doubt — he may be canonized ! 



THE HON. HORACE MANN. 31 

If the Christiaa religion is removed from the common schools, we 
know not what may take its place — it may be the mythology of the 
Brahmins. In that religion, men deified these who scourged them, 
no less than those who did them good. In the Parthenon, shrines were 
erected, not only to the " benignant deities of light and plenty, but 
also to those who preside over the small-pox and murder." 

His Excellency could well afford to be " gi'acious " at so little 
cost. He is a gentleman of unbounded philanthropy, and much 
quiet humor. He knew probably the disappointment of the Secre- 
tary last autumn — the Secretary hints, that just before he wrote 
the Message, the Governor had read my pamphet — he could 
hardly do less than say what he thought no man would deny. 
Like an expert wrestler. His Excellency gives him a hoist, before he 
lets him fall ; or — as Haman's gallows haunts the Secretary — a 
man is usually raised by the words of a magistrate, before he hangs. 
If, after ten years' service, the Secretary needed such a common- 
place endorsement, I do not wonder he turned red the first time he 
read it. 

The simple case is this : I have cited cases in which Gov. Briggs 
connects the present life with the future. I have proved that the 
Secretary asserts that this cannot be done without violation of the 
right of conscience, and the Constitution of Massachusetts. Even 
Mr. Mann does not accuse me of misrepresenting Governor Briggs 
or himself on this point. If Gov. Briggs endorses the Secretary's 
construction, then he speaks and prints one thing, and endorses 
another. If he does not, he '• stands rebuked by his Secretary." 
And should he refer to Mr. Mann in every public document he may 
issue while he lives, and canonize him after he is dead, it would 
not alter the fact I have stated. 

5. In respect to Mr. Webster's argument in the Girard case, 
Mr. Mann asserts, " that there is an infinite distance between our 
school system and the system of Mr. Girard, against which Mr. 
Webster was contending ?" So far from this, the principle is the same 
in both cases. The efforts of Mr. Mann, in my opinion will, if suc- 
cessful, make the Common Schools what the Girard Institution is in 



32 MR. SMITH IN REPLY TO 

regard to religion. The question decided by the Court, was not the 
constitutionality of having religion taught in schools, but the fact, 
that Mr. Webster's argument did not apply to the Girard case. 
Yet Mr. Mann, in his evasive style, attempts to leave the impression 
that the Supreme Court of the United States have decided that it is 
unconstitutional to have either the Bible or Religion in Common 
Schools 1 ! 

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION. 

I have charged this body vv^ith throw^ing over the crude and de- 
structive notions of its Secretary the pall of its authority. As long 
as he sends out his opinions through the length and breadth of the 
land, and is allowed to sign himself " Secretary of the Board of 
Education of Massachusetts," this charge will hold true. To the 
charge against certain books in the schools, Mr. Mann replies, 
that some were written by orthodox men, and all endorsed by high 
names. Precisely the course adopted by W. B. Fowle and Nahum 
Capen to prove that the District School Library did not contain 
ribaldry, profanity and blasphemy — such names are no security. 
Personal friendship gets one name, and this secures all the rest. 



MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS. 

1. The Hon. Secretary seems to have written his " Sequel ^' 
under a paroxysm of desperation. Even his friends, who, " I am 
told," tried, could not hold him back. He no where forgets to 
magnify himself, in all things ; and his boastings have passed into a 
proverb. If any one should ask, with the apostle, " Where is 
boasting, then .? " the natural answer would be, "In the ' SequeV 
of the Hon. Horace Mann." He accuses me, page by page, of ly- 
ing, till he comes to page 47, then he informs me of some things I 
must do, for my character is at stake. On page 10, he demands 
that the correspondence be re-opened. Yet, when he has travelled 
on to page 56, he asserts, that if he had, in the beginning, known 



THE HON. HORACE MANN. 33 

as much about me, as he did when he reached that point, he would 
not have sent his first letter. He accuses me of arrogance and dog- 
matism, and yet, on page 56, he assumes, in all humilily, no doubt, 
the prerogative of God, and affects to forgive sins. I, the adulter- 
ous woman — he, the immaculate Savior ! 

2. Mr. Mann, on page 6, gives his objections to my sermon. 
He adds : " Those clergymen u'Jio desecrate their pulpits hy indulg- 
ing their malevolence^ generally commit their libels in their prayers. 
You have throicn off even this screen.'''' On page 18, he informs me 
how I ought to have preached my sermon. The gentleman, in 
magnifying his office, has outrun his commission. I have not heard 
of his appointment yet as arch-bishop of the State. He has the 
control of schools, I know. He has decided what piely is, and how 
much of it shall be taught. But I imagine he has not yet been ap- 
pointed to control the pulpit. When his advice is needed on the 
subject of which he speaks, it will be called for. I suppose many 
sermons are daily preached, that the honorable gentleman would 
not be pleased with. Clergymen seem to be in bad favor with the 
Secretary. They " generally., (a common business, it would seem,) 
commit their libels in their prayers." The only difference between 
myself and many other clergymen is, I am a little more bold — I 
do not take even this screen — I speak so plainly, that the State 
understand whom I mean. What high notions of religious service 
the Secretary must possess ! His keen scent of a libel can enable 
him to detect it, even in his devotions! When Mr. Mann is taxed 
to pay my salary — as I am taxed to pay his — he may be per- 
mitted to advise on this subject. Till then, he will do well to attend 
to his legitimate duty. 

3. On page 3, he intimates that I have been in the practice of 
" boivling, Sunday mornings and evenings.'"' After alluding to such 
a practice, he says : " And you will understand what I mean by 
this." The insinuation is as false as it is infamous. I cast it back 
in the teeth of the " Honorable Secretary of the Board of Educa- 
tion." I wish to call the attention of the people of this State to this 
outrage, so common with him, in the defence of his official course, 



34 ME. SMITH IN REPLY TO 

If any one calls in question the soundness of his views, or their good 
tendency, the Secretary gives battle at once ; and in each case, as 
far as I am informed, has, from the beginning of his official course, 
denounced and accused men, who dissent from his theory and no- 
tions, as men who will not or can not speak the truth. He accuses 
clergymen of libelling their congregation, in their prayers and 
sermons. Editors, of every name, who do not praise and flatter 
him, he denounces as men who persist in misrepresenting him. 
Hardly an editor in Boston has failed to receive a personal visit 
from him, in respect to his official course. He does more than this 
— he goes down into the very ditch, and drags out vile and rotten 
calumnies, which men, in their rage, invented, and then threw 
away, and by them, hopes to divert attention from himself, and 
thus maintain his official position. The calumny referred to, is a 
ease in point. 

By what authority, I ask, does he lampoon and abuse, with vile 
insinuations, and black and harsh epithets, all who call in question 
the wisdom of his notions and the utility of his labors ? On what 
meat does the Secretary feed, that he attempts to lash every 
one's tongue into silence ? Who bids him, at the expense of the 
State, deal out blows and censure upon all who will not w^orship 
him.' 

When Mr. Mann returned from Europe, he made a report to the 
Board of Education. In it, he disparages the schools of his own 
State, and magnifies himself. Some gentlemen defended themselves 
and their schools from his aspersions. The Secretary comes out 
upon them, with all the wrath of a despot, and very gravely sends 
some of them to " the opposite side of the moral universe " — as if 
Heaven and Hell were at his disposal, and he could send men to 
which place soever he pleased. Does Mr. Mann expect that his 
ability to make himself offensive will be his security ? If so, he 
will yet discover his mistake. He will be rebuked and exposed — 
his evasions and equivocations laid bare, while he has ability to 
do harm by public appointment — while he is supported by the 
Stale. 



T'tiE aON. HORACE MANN. SS 

It is not an occasional outbreak of passion and malignity, that I 
refer to ; but his regular mode of assault. His ability to blacken 
and abuse men who stand in his way,- his reckless use of lan- 
guage, his passion — all seem to be the shield behind which he 
hopes to hide. No matter what he proposes or does^ or what or 
whom is harmed by his experiment, nor what is shaken by his 
results — he must be let alone ; he is too sacred to be touched — - 
too infallible to be questioned. If questioned — if opposed — he 
stands, with sleeves rolled up, and pen in hand, ready to use any 
weapon — ready to defame and blacken any man. His " Sequel " 
is an illustration. He there appears in the light in which he loves 
to shine. No evasion is too gross — no insinuation too foul — no 
calumny too offensive, for him. Like a pettifogger in our lowest 
courts, he flings out any aspersion that arises in his mind, and 
leaves his opponent to prove that the charge is not founded in truth. 
Such is our great Normal'; pattern, held up to the youth of our 
State. Such the standard-bearer of education and courtesy to our 
young men and maidens. 

No other officer in the State would be sustained in such a course. 
Mr. Mann dare not leave his opinions to the judgment of men. He 
dare not leave his official course to defend itself. He runs from one 
printing office to another and from one paper to another, writes to 
this editor and accuses that, if any thing is said against his plans. 
If insinuations, and hard names, and abusive language will cause a 
man to stand firm, his base must be immovable. What a spirit he 
exhibits — what a spectacle for men to look at ! He, the pattern of 
the State, the controler of Schools — the enemy to " the one devil 
of a rod " — the great champion of moral suasion — the advo- 
cate of good will and peace, kindness and love, pouring out vials of 
indignation and hate upon all who doubt his infallibility — attempting 
to place on the gibbit of infamy all who say, that a man supported by 
the State should act and speak like a gentleman and a'Christian — ' 
setting an example before the youth of our State, if he has any 
influence over them, which must corrupt and debase them. We have 
had quite enough of this — it is time it was checked. Those who 



96 ME. SMITH IN REPLY TO 

employ him, should oblige him to observe better manners or else 
dismiss him. 

4. A word personal to myself*. 
■^ The sermon, as it appeared in the Recorder, was simply a Reports 
it would have been corrected and enlarged, in subsequent publi' 
cations, had it not already been made the subject of newspaper 
criticism. When I issued my pamphlet, it was in self-vindicationi 
Abusive and defamatory articles had appeared in some of the daily 
journals. It was necessary to notice them. In omitting the date 
of my letter, so far from intending any wrong, or expecting to gain 
any advantage thereby, I did not even notice the omission till my 
attention was called to it in the Sequel. It was omitted simply be- 
cause, in the haste of transcribing, I did, not note it on the copy 
retained. 

Mr. Mann says, on page 56, " Had I known as much respecting 
your character and standing, when I addressed you my first note, as 
I now do, I should not have troubled you." 

There is deep significance in that confession — others are of the 
same opinion. I have the advantage of Mr. Mann ; I knew some- 
thing of holh his character and his standing before I alluded to him. 
The work which I have now performed is not agreeable, but neces' 
sary. I do not wish to add to the Secretary's discomfort or dis* 
grace. I would not choose, if allowed to select a correspondent; 
one who ejects virulence and aspersion with each respiration. But 
the good of the Slate is paramount to private ease, and painful as 
exorcism may be, it is not so great an evil as continued possessioni 



Errata. — On page fourtli, second paragraph, for " what he insinuates on page 
86," read " page 16." 



REPLY 



TO THE 



SEQUEL OF HON, HOEACB MANN, 



BEING A SUPPLEMENT TO THE 



33iblc, tl)C Hob, anb tlcliciicn, iu (Hommoii 0cl)ools. 



BY MATTEIEW HALE SMITH. 



o^ BOSTON: 
J. M. WHITTEMORE, 114 WASHINGTON ST. 
1847. 



^ 



i 



1 


















1 1 









'it 






:^:^ 









^^ C^_ CC:^___ ^ ;^ 






eld 



If 



^ ■ <3C 






rcc > S 

2C C G > C 









rv cc ■^^ ' 






eg: 

''■<:<£_ 

/## 















1^ 



4r «-^ ■ "--. 









tfe 












